These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22222736)

  • 1. Sociology of science: Keep standards high.
    Ravetz J
    Nature; 2012 Jan; 481(7379):25. PubMed ID: 22222736
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The registrar.
    Oyesiku NM
    Neurosurgery; 2010 Nov; 67(5):1165-6. PubMed ID: 20948397
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
    Naqvi KR
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sociology of science: Big data deserve a bigger audience.
    Huberman BA
    Nature; 2012 Feb; 482(7385):308. PubMed ID: 22337040
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
    Cintas P
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Scholarship: Beyond the paper.
    Priem J
    Nature; 2013 Mar; 495(7442):437-40. PubMed ID: 23538811
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Double-blind review: let diversity reign.
    O'Hara B
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Anonymity in peer review--time for a change?
    Clayson DB
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1995 Aug; 22(1):101. PubMed ID: 7494896
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Disruption to science in developing countries.
    Barcinski MA
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774097
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Quality evaluation needs some better quality tools.
    Döring TF
    Nature; 2007 Feb; 445(7129):709. PubMed ID: 17301769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review: Trial by Twitter.
    Mandavilli A
    Nature; 2011 Jan; 469(7330):286-7. PubMed ID: 21248816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
    Korngreen A
    Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Harnessing value of dispersed critiques.
    Goldacre B
    Nature; 2011 Feb; 470(7333):175. PubMed ID: 21307921
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Neuroendocrinologies membership of the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
    Saper CB; Maunsell JH
    Neuroendocrinology; 2009; 89(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 19176976
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. What do we know about peer review?
    Wessely S
    Psychol Med; 1996 Sep; 26(5):883-6. PubMed ID: 8878322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Experimenting with peer review.
    Jabri E
    ACS Chem Biol; 2006 Jul; 1(6):325-6. PubMed ID: 17163762
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
    Lane D
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322503
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Ratings games.
    Nature; 2005 Aug; 436(7053):889-90. PubMed ID: 16107794
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Publishing: Alarming shift away from sharing results.
    Boniolo G; Vaccari T
    Nature; 2012 Aug; 488(7410):157. PubMed ID: 22874955
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. When blogs make sense.
    Nature; 2010 Jul; 466(7302):8. PubMed ID: 20595967
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.